You're saying Kinkos was acting as a dumb copy service and was sued for copy right infringement. But your linked case explicitly says this is wrong. Rather, they lost because:

    Kinko's has periodically asserted that it acted at the instruction of the
    educational institution, that is, as the agent of the colleges and is without
    responsibility. Yet, Kinko's promotional materials belie this contention
    particularly because Kinko's takes responsibility for obtaining copyright
    permission while touting the expertise of its copyright permissions staff (a
    "service [which] is provided at no charge to all Kinko's customers.").
    "Copyright Information Letter to Faculty Members," in Kinko's Copyright and
    Professor Publishing Handbook, at 40.